On 07/09/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/09/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I tried to see , and fund "This question is no longer available" -- perhaps you could repeat it here.
I don't have a copy to hand, unfortunately. I'm presuming he deleted the question because he didn't like the consistent answers suggesting he was wrong.
SWATJester found a cached copy. You'll see what I mean. My original answer is below.
Question Details: -------------------- Do you think web services like "FREE encyclopedia" Wikipedia have the right to exclude information they deem a "conflict of interest?"
In my opinion, if you're presenting a FREE web service called Wikipedia - "the FREE encyclopedia" you should make certain you present factual information, not "partial facts fitting your vested interests."
Today, my team visited Wikipedia's "free encyclopedia" and added www.MyCommunityLink.com to the known list of web-based social networking services. Afterall, MyCommunityLink.com is the patent-pending SSL-secure social networking service for neighborhoods since June of 2003 (pre Facebook, MySpace, Ning, etc.).
However, within moments, our entry was tagged for "speedy deletion". So, out of curiosity it was added it again and again by our team over a day... We witnessed each time it was added it was immediately tagged for "speedy deletion" by an anonymous "Wikipedia administrator" hiding in a dark censorship "backroom." After about ten deletes we received a threatening message about expected "Wikipedia civil behavior." I have these questions:
1) Has anyone encountered oxymoronic censorship tied to FREE "information?" 2) Does vested-interest exclusion of information discredit their "encyclopedia" claims? 3) Does providing a FREE service entitle the provider to "do whatever they want?" 4) Would you pay a small fee for complete information that has not been censored in any way?
Personally, I think this brute-level censorship is gutless, disturbing and red flags what the "powerful will dictate" once all competition is eliminated by their "FREE" offerings. What are your thoughts? I don't like "anonymous" censorship. I think it's dangerous. Please comment.
On 9/6/07 2:04 PM, John F. Tummolo (john@tummolo.com) added the following clarification: We attempted to "discuss" the issues with the administrators who indicated our entry represented a "conflict of interest" and we should get a review of our technology by CNN (subsidiary of AOL/TIME WARNER.)
On 9/6/07 3:04 PM, John F. Tummolo (john@tummolo.com) added the following clarification: The article we submitted along with the list entry was less than five lines of raw basic factual information. There was no room for "biased" opinions. Just facts. I suggest anyone can add such basic information.
-----
My original answer was:
Answering as an expert here - I've been on English Wikipedia since late 2003, admin since 2004, arbitrator in 2005, currently do UK press for Wikipedia and Wikimedia ... Wikipedia has a terrible spam problem (as you can imagine for a top-10 website that lets anyone edit), and unfortunately you would probably have been mistaken for a spammer. My apologies if they were brusque in this, but we deal with basically a firehose of sewage on a daily basis. (Everything Wikipedia's gotten, it's gotten through being as wide-open as possible and clearing the bad stuff afterwards.)
Writing your own entry is ill-advised - see the [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]] for some unfortunate past examples. See also [[WP:COI]]. Basically, if you're noteworthy, some third party will probably create an entry on you. If you're not, you may be better off that way - some people have had nasty experiences for what others did to an entry they wrote about themselves. What's notability? If independent third parties find you noteworthy, and that's citable in notable sources, you may be notable. (That's a bit circular as a definition, but I hope you get the idea.)
The best way to do things is the same way Wikipedia got to the top of the Google ratings: ignore them, and just do what you do and do it well. The best recent advice on this I can cite is Durova's essay "SEO Tips & Tactics From A Wikipedia Insider" (linked).
[links to WP:COI, WP:AUTO and Durova's article]
- d.